Sunday, 4 January 2009


Yesterday I talked about whether I was an individualist anarchist or a social anarchist. I am a mutualist, so the confusion in me regarding that is understandable, due to the fact that mutualism is the meeting point between the two strands of the anarchist tradition. After thinking about it I cannot subscribe to the teachings of people like tucker because of this whole idea of private competing protection agencies. This is an awful idea. not only is it exploitative from lots of angles, it would lead to all sorts of armed conflicts and has capitalistic features. I see some REAL problems there. not good, not good at all. Which is why I have decided that when I refer to specifically what type of anarchist I am I will just say Mutualist.

I won't use the term "market anarchist", even though technically I am, because I don't want to be thought of as anywhere near those vulgar libertarians that call themselves "anarcho-capitalists". no way.

My individualism is not as radical as some, I must admit. I'm no egoist. I have aspects of individualist and social thought in my general philosophy.

what you have to realise about these posts is that it is essentially me thinking out loud. I'm figuring things out. So I seem to contradict myself it's just that I'm thinking matters over.

No comments: